OK... I accept your points as valid, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. I will revoke what I've said to you previously. There's a lot of theist bashing here and nam wasnt really helping the forum gel with his trolling, but thats just my view, Im not expecting you to agree.

Reading through this thread, I can't tell who has the blessings of god and is obeying the instructions of Jesus. Lots of cursing, insults, finger-pointing and juvenile behavior from people who claim to be religious. Not very convincing that religion makes someone any better than an atheist.

Can someone indicate to me who, if anyone, is the bible-based Christian here? Seems to me that god is not helping his follower(s) at all.....

While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.

Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"

Scientists didn't even know that until recently.

Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.

While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.

Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"

Scientists didn't even know that until recently.

Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.

How can you possibly be so impressed with such trivial revelation?

Put a three year old in a room with some grasshoppers. If that kid does not conclude that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking, then that kid is severely brain damaged.

And blood is not life. Blood is a necessary component for many forms of life here on Earth (animals[1]). Unnecessary for others (plants). To say 'blood is life' is a gross oversimplification and reeks of being a cute, incomplete platitude.

------------------------------

I wonder, though - do you think that SwordOfGod's theology is the result of a demon? Why or why not?

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.

Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"

Scientists didn't even know that until recently.

Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.

Most life on Earth has not evolved the use of blood and does not need it.

More important, I hope you can see this SOG guy for what he is. I was going to ask you to look at his posts anyway. Look at some of my quotes from him in 498 and consider who he reminds you of.

Using a misunderstanding between Nam and myself as a defense for yourself only strengthens my point.Also admitting that I've called skeptic a dishonest tard (I wasn't even talking about Nam in that instance btw) doesn't make me a hypocrite.What makes me a hypocrite is repeatedly doing it, which I have not.

SoG, I've been reading through your posts and I've noticed nothing but dodges and insults, you really need to learn respect. You came to a primarily atheist site and start throwing insults and bible passages around like they mean anything. All it does is make you look like a biggoted moron, for your sake I beg you to stop.

Saying it makes you look like something is not the same as actually calling you it.

EDIT:You wouldn't know a troll if it gave you a lap dance buddy, the only trolls here are you and skeptic.

While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.

Nobody argued that grasshoppers didn't have legs they used for jumping. However, they do in fact walk on all six legs, so arguing that they walk "on all fours" is not correct. My guess would be that the words translated as "on all fours" probably mean something like "on all of their limbs", and thus this is a translation issue. However, I couldn't find anything online which indicated this, so I could easily be wrong.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"

Not really, leaving aside the "-100 IQ" hyperbole. It doesn't take a genius or a rocket scientists to count the legs of an insect. That's why the phrase "on all fours" was such a bad choice, whether it was the original Hebrews who picked it or later translators.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Scientists didn't even know that until recently.

You're going to need to support this, because I find it to be extremely doubtful.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.

I think you'd better rethink this; bloodletting has been around since before Christianity. Indeed, there's plenty of support for Christians and Jews practicing bloodletting:

"Bloodletting was also prominent in the early days of some of the world's most practiced religions. The Talmud (a central text of Judaism) included rules for days where bloodletting could be practiced. Early Christian writings outlined which saint's days were the best for the ritual. Bloodletting is also referenced as a treatment for fevers is some early Islamic texts."[1]

It wasn't until the 19th century when physicians started questioning the practice - and not based on the Bible, but based on the fact that it simply didn't improve a patient's health. The practice pretty much died out in the early 20th century thanks to improved medical science and technology. In fact, the only times bloodletting is used today are to treat specific conditions where medical science has demonstrated that it's beneficial.

You might think twice before posting things like this, considering just how badly this one backfired on you.

While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.

Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"

Scientists didn't even know that until recently.

Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.

Something based on observing nature like counting an insect's legs, should not be a stretch for any group. Ancient people like the Mayans figured out a lot of advanced stuff by observing nature and keeping accurate records. If the Middle Eastern desert nomads had never seen or heard of a grasshopper and yet knew accurate things about them, I would consider it strange, possibly even miraculous. I will chalk up the number of legs problem to translation errors, because who can't count to six?

But I won't continue the grasshopper discussion, because you have decided that if the bible says it, whatever it is, it has to be accurate and true. Even if it is neither, and you have to twist words to change their meaning. I don't have any such bias. If the bible is basically true in some places, I have no problem with that. The bible is a compilation drawn from lots of different sources and some of them were correct. Even a broken clock is right sometimes.

Now, that part about scientists advocating bloodletting is clearly not accurate. If people are just trying anything and everything in an unsystematic scattershot fashion, and not even keeping records as to the outcomes, you can't call it science. Science is based on applying a rational, systematic method to try to determine what appears to be true. The European "heroic medicine" of the Middle Ages up through the 19th century was not rational or systematic, and certainly not scientific.

Bloodletting was based on desperation and ignorance of what caused sickness--the bible evidently neglected to tell people a few sentences about how to determine what works by using the scientific method, basic hygiene and the importance of boiling water, (ie germ theory) or even a list of helpful herbs and useful medicines, as opposed to spending hundreds of pages discussing forbidden foods, magic rituals and evil spirits.

To be considered scientific, the result--or something very like the result-- has to be repeatable, and has to work when different people do it. And the outcome has to be better than random chance. So, one person with leprosy getting better from prayer or by applying bird's blood or being touched by a magic healing person could just be coincidence or one lucky event.

People have tried all kinds of unlikely things to treat illness, because they were ignorant, desperate, and because the prayers, rituals and instructions from various religions did not work consistently! If people had found the instructions in the bible--like praying a certain way or to certain beings or to apply bird's blood, or to be touched by the magic healing person-- to be consistently effective in treating illness, we would never have needed to develop the scientific method. We would all just pray the right way to the right being, apply bird's blood or let the magic healing person touch us and get well.

Modern medical science is about figuring out what works better than random chance-- and works not just once, but consistently, and for lots of people. However, that is only part of it. Some things ancient societies observed and practiced turned out to be scientifically accurate, like using willow bark tea for pain. That led to the discovery of aspirin. But until you do controlled tests[1] and, ideally, you figure out why it works, you can't say it was scientific, even though it worked.

In order to honestly say that scientists approved of bloodletting, you would have to show at the very least that somebody did controlled experiments of some sort, and compared the results of patients treated by bloodletting with controls who were not so treated. And that ideally, these people figured out the connection, if any, between bloodletting and disease.

If scientists had found that bloodletting worked in the treatment of a certain disease, then we would still be doing that today. And, surprise surprise, after doing actual science, we found that bloodletting--while harmful in most general cases-- is useful for some specific diseases![2]

As it turns out, you are doubly wrong. Life is not in the blood. Iron, and sometimes too much iron, is in the blood. Bloodletting, done unscientifically does harm, but when used scientifically, it does work.

Could you save us all a lot of time and look sh!t up (and not just in religious sources) before you post ignorant statements? Or would that limit you too much?

My guess would be that the words translated as "on all fours" probably mean something like "on all of their limbs", and thus this is a translation issue.

It's not. The word used is "arba", which means "four".http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H702&t=KJVI find it just about impossible for them to not know how many legs a grasshopper, locust or beetle had. It is not something that requires a great amount of intellect or advanced knowledge. So, I'm at a loss as to what the hebrews were talking about.

For the record, I do not find this, or the bit about rabbits chewing cud, to be prime examples of why the bible should be cast aside as primitive mythology. It is a target rich environment and I find this argument generally devolves into pettiness.

As an aside, while I was researching this, I found that some apologist sources claim also that "beetle"[1] comes from the root word "to leap".[2] But that is either a lie or profound ignorance. I estimate it is more likely a lie. According to Strong's, the root is "to be afraid, to tremble from fear".[3]

Were I still a xian, all the lying and obfuscation by xian "authorities" would make me seriously question my faith. Why do they think their beliefs are supported by lies? If anything, it undermines them.

Well, yeah, it takes a matter of a few minutes of careful observation - which the Hebrews might not have had time for, what with their obsession with ritual cleanliness - to establish that grasshoppers walk using all six legs. How the legs are specialized doesn't matter, because it's quite evident that they use all six to walk most of the time. Indeed, if they didn't use the rear legs to walk, how could they efficiently use them for jumping?

But either way, this is not particularly important. All it means is that the Hebrews weren't terribly observant if it fell outside their "ritual cleanliness" schtick.

For the record, I do not find this, or the bit about rabbits chewing cud, to be prime examples of why the bible should be cast aside as primitive mythology. It is a target rich environment and I find this argument generally devolves into pettiness.

Now I know that this argument does "devolve into pettiness". I was only responding to SOG's wrong claim that "God knows everything, including all of science, for he is the source and giver of all we know." Bringing up the number of feet/legs that flying insects have was just one example why his god doesn't "know everything including all of science". I knew I opened up a can of worms that would derail the topic of the thread but I didn't know it would turn into a bucket of worms. I think it turned into a bucket because of SOG's laughable rationalizations.

From my perspective, I would have to disagree with you a bit when you say, "I do not find this, or the bit about rabbits chewing cud, to be prime examples of why the bible should be cast aside as primitive mythology". And I think it is because of how one is brought up........I mean brainwashed.........to view the bible. I was brought up as a staunch fundamentalist when it came to how one should view the bible. I was brought up.........I mean brainwashed..........to believe that every jot and tittle in the bible was breathed by god.

All I needed to do was to find one verse like these verses in Leviticus to know that the notion of the bible being god-breathed was BS. I mean, if god cannot even breath out the words and correctly describe the creatures he created then, to me, this would have been a good reason to "cast aside" the bible. If I was to find out just one verse like these I find in Leviticus then I would immediately conclude that the bible is the word of man and not the word of god.

Unfortunately, I didn't even know any of these verses existed in the bible because of the dishonesty of my teachers. One really has to crack open the bible for themselves to know that there is A LOT of bad that comes with the good. Including the contradiction of god knowing all things (1 John 3:20) to him not even being able to know the number of legs the creatures he created has.

Logged

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

From my perspective, I would have to disagree with you a bit when you say, "I do not find this, or the bit about rabbits chewing cud, to be prime examples of why the bible should be cast aside as primitive mythology".

You are free to disagree, but I do not think it has to do with whether you take an inerrantist view or not. These two particular examples are small and, as you have just seen, waved away by apologists. I see bigger issues, like the parting of waters in genesis, and the celestial ocean being held up by a solid dome (called a firmament). Or the conflicting stories of creation, or the part where it gives the instructions for making a magical Potion of Truth to tell if your wife is cheating on you. Are the nephilim related to the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk? Etc.

Those give you the examples you would need to show the bible is junk, whether you were taught every word was god-breathed or not. Provided that was what you were looking for.

I'm glad you found these examples compelling enough to break out of religion. But in my experience, they tend to be kind of nit-picky and easily dismissed by inerrantists and more liberal xians.

From my perspective, I would have to disagree with you a bit when you say, "I do not find this, or the bit about rabbits chewing cud, to be prime examples of why the bible should be cast aside as primitive mythology".

You are free to disagree, but I do not think it has to do with whether you take an inerrantist view or not. These two particular examples are small and, as you have just seen, waved away by apologists. I see bigger issues, like the parting of waters in genesis, and the celestial ocean being held up by a solid dome (called a firmament). Or the conflicting stories of creation, or the part where it gives the instructions for making a magical Potion of Truth to tell if your wife is cheating on you. Are the nephilim related to the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk? Etc.

Those give you the examples you would need to show the bible is junk, whether you were taught every word was god-breathed or not. Provided that was what you were looking for.

I'm glad you found these examples compelling enough to break out of religion. But in my experience, they tend to be kind of nit-picky and easily dismissed by inerrantists and more liberal xians.

Yeah, it's not an objective disagreement as we have both used phrases such as "I think", "I do not think", and "from my perspective". I think it is a matter of how much weight one puts on the inerrancy of the bible. For me, my faith weighed heavily on the inerrancy of the bible. To give a parable:

It's like me paying lots and lots of money to see the greatest performer in the universe spin many plates on a stick. Throughout the performance the stick gets one little hairline stress fracture in it and all the plates fall and break into pieces. I am angered a bit because I paid lots and lots of money to see the greatest performer in the universe perform this trick and his trick failed because of a little hairline stress fracture. I, in turn, ask this great performer for my money back for his lackluster performance.

I will be as gracious as Jesus was in Mark 4 and explain my parable:

The greatest performer in the universe = the one and only great god of the bible.The lots and lots of money = my tithes and offerings to this great god hoping for a great performance.The stick = the alleged inerrant word that was breathed out of this great gods mouth.The little hairline stress fracture = one little irreconcilable contradiction in the alleged inerrant word of godThe plates = my faithMe asking for my money back = wishful thinking

It just depends on how much weight is put on the inerrancy of the bible for one to save faith. Some people still have their plates spinning knowing the stick is broken in half. In other words, some people put no weight on the inerrancy of the bible to remain faithful to the god of the bible. I was not this person.

I am a person who likes to get out of the water when I see a single turd at the bottom of the pool. For some people, it takes more than one turd to get out of the water. Many people (such as many of my friends and family members), enjoy swimming in the pool when the water has even turned brown and they just pretend the water is crystal clear.

You say this might be "nit-picky" but I'll go one step further. If I saw a little rabbit turd at the bottom of the pool I would want to get out of the pool. Hell, let's just say this rabbit turd is from a supernatural rabbit that chews cud and somehow I can see this supernatural turd with my natural eyes. I still think I would exit the pool.

Who knows what kind of "cud chewing" rabbit trail I would have gone down if I would have heard of these verses in....say.....youth group. I know I would have thought it was funny that god doesn't know how to describe the creatures he created. After examining the unconvincing rationalizations of these verses, I know I would have concluded that the bible could not be viewed as 100% inerrant. Then I would have questioned god's omniscience. Then I would have questioned his omnipotence. Then I would question his benevolence.....and the rabbit hole I would dig would lead to the center of the earth where the worm doesn't die.

I do know what one little hairline stress fracture did to my faith 3 years ago..........It turned from me being willing to tie up my only son and possibly kill him if god told me to do it like Abraham did with Isaac, to me being unwilling to do this if god told me to do it. One little hairline stress fracture changed my faith that much.

But people are different. People have different tipping points and people rely on different factors to remain faithful. My son now knows I would not tie him up and kill him if god told me to do it so in the end, we are a much happier family. I am thankful I read the bible objectively for myself without any outside influence!

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

While you guys might view SwordOfGod as a bit unorthodox, nevertheless the Bible DOES say that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking.

Quite astonishing for "desert nomad goat herders with an IQ of -100"

Scientists didn't even know that until recently.

Also remember when scientists used to think bloodletting was a viable option? Yet, the Bible states that the life is in the blood. In the Bible for thousands of years and ignored by scientists until they saw it didn't work.

How can you possibly be so impressed with such trivial revelation?

Put a three year old in a room with some grasshoppers. If that kid does not conclude that grasshoppers have legs for jumping and legs for walking, then that kid is severely brain damaged.

And blood is not life. Blood is a necessary component for many forms of life here on Earth (animals[1]). Unnecessary for others (plants). To say 'blood is life' is a gross oversimplification and reeks of being a cute, incomplete platitude.

------------------------------

I wonder, though - do you think that SwordOfGod's theology is the result of a demon? Why or why not?

1. A LESSON IN SCIENCE FROM THE BIBLE AND THE WISDOM OF THE 3 YEAR OLD ATHEIST

Three year old's also believe on the tooth fairy, but would they or YOU make the scientific distinction? No. Time to quit thinking like a baby. However, just to humor you, the bible states legs for walking and legs for jumping in Leviticus 11:21. Get that scripture and memorize it, because you keep forgetting what it says.

Leviticus 11:20–2320 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: hthe locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

The Bible in Leviticus 11:21 shows that the hind jumping legs are not included in the four “walking” or “creeping” feet. The feet are the four front limbs used for walking and look the same. The back two limbs are primarily for jumping, known in science as "specialized legs", which you blatantly ignore. You are chasing your own tail this time Jdawg. There's a good boy.

2. THE BIBLE IS RIGHT WHEN IT SAYS THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD - I.E BLOOD CARRIES OXYGEN AROUND THE BODY.

The key to our living is in the blood which carries the oxygen around our body. It seems you Atheists love to deny science when it suits you, just to make your troll-like biased, unfactual, unscientific, unfounded, nonsensical claims. By the way, thanks for giving me another opportunity to highlight Bible Truth, yet at the same time, expose your misguided ignorance and stupidity. Ironically, the Bible has exposed your atheistic views twice again, using science against you. That's further evidence of Gods dominion, creation and exalted status; for science and the whole human race were created by Him through His word which changes not.

I wonder, though - do you think that jdawg's science is about as good as the next dimwitted atheist? Gee, let me think.. Lets see what science says about the blood..

If he is a lesser god why Christians commit the idolatry of worshiping Jesus?

If they're the same God why pray to himself?

Jesus can be thought of as an aspect of God ie aspect = one representation or presentation of God.

To communicate with humans God showed a human aspect.

So is the human aspect all of God ? No - God may have infinite aspects.

Is the human aspect truly God ? Yes

Can I worship an aspect of God ? When I worship an aspect of God I worship all of God.

[And just to be clear about worship, worship is not falling in a grovelling and unworthy heap on the floor - worship is to see the goodness of something, acknowledge that goodness and to advocate that goodness]

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Bullcrap, utter and unmitigated bullcrap. Communism is a Dogma and shares a great deal of things in common with religion:

(1)A Holy Text(2)A group of interpreters of said text supported through force(3)Geographically isolated lead interpreters have differing interpretations(schism) which have led to conflict(4)A resistance to evidence, to the point of mocking, jailing, and killing those that attempt to show that evidence(5)Saints, revered dead figures that serve as icons

A lack of belief had jack and crap to do with it.

“We have a choice. We have two options as human beings. We have a choice between conversation and war. That's it. Conversation and violence. And faith is a conversation stopper.” ? Sam Harris

Then Mao in China, also wiping out religion with his brand of atheistic socialism Marxist-Leninism, killed more than 60 million people.[5]

These 2 world leaders, both atheists who rejected religion, killed more people than anyone else in the world.[6]

The prize for those best at killing and persecuting the most go to Atheists.

Christians are treated better by Muslims than Atheists. Futhermore, it would be safer to live in an Islamic country than to live in a Atheistic Socialist Marxist-Leninist barbaric state which killed over 100 million people. Also, Muslims are more tollerant than Atheists. They are also more moral.

Communism is a form of politics, but like islam, it dictates all spheres of life, including a persons religion. Therefore, communism is a replacement for religion in the eyes of those who believe in the doctrine of the communist manifesto. Communism is a religion without God.

A religion can be described as:

a) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices[2]b) a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects[3]

Communism may be a dogma, but it can also be a form of religion by definition without acknowledging God or any other deity as it only acknowledges the supreme rule of one human dictator and fits the other points perfectly.

1. Atheistic Communist Manifesto - Eliminate Religion. Thats the communist bible.2. One supreme leader, and goon like henchmen to enforce by gunfire and swords. 3. Schism occured in Communism, called the Sino-Soviet Split.4. Persecution and killing of 100 milliion people and more. 5. Communism idolizes its own founding fathers. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------